In its place, science has taken over to make sure individuals have no reason for self-denial or fear. Nearing the end of the Aldous Huxley’s novel, Mustapha Mond and the savage discuss the relevance of religion in their present society, if there is a need for God: Us, the modern world. ’You can only be independent of God while you’ve got youth and prosperity; independence won’t take you safely to the end.’ Well, we’ve now got youth and prosperity right up to the end. What follows? Evidently, that we can be independent of God.
Even though Franklin criticizes the influence of religion on people’s life, he also understands and tolerates the social use of religion. “I grew convinced that truth, sincerity, and integrity in dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance of felicity of life; […] Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such; but I entertained an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them, yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us.” (Franklin 55) These feelings of solidarity formed a common identity which eventually results in the beginning of the American Revolution. Away from the Anglican Church and the English royal dynasty, people formed their own identity independently. They became a
Status Viatoris has great implication to our lives as it relates to Faith, Hope, and Love, the theological virtues. Some of the characters in our readings highlight a specific theological virtue more than others, yet all need the concept of Status Viatoris to orient themselves on the correct path in their life. Aylmer’s unwavering faith in science did not lead him to cherish his wife, but to manipulate and abuse her. Charlotte Bronte, recognizing her own sinful tendencies, saw that she needed to place her hope in the Lord, and not her friend, lest she idolize a mere mortal. The characters in Popular Mechanic, though they were convinced that they were acting out of love, actually caused harm to their child.
Thoreau has to utilize material items as a way to evoke a spiritual outcome, meanwhile Franklin is materialistic so that he does not have to have debt to his creditors. Thoreau believes that everyone should live according to their true passions, because by finding ones passions will allow one to have freedom. Another way to acquire freedom is by minimizing ones need, rather than what one wants. Thoreau argues that luxuries not only acquire excess labor, but also oppress humans spiritually because they are infiltrated with worry and constraint. Since people believe that they need excess possessions to be happy, this forces people to work more and lose their inner freedom along the way to social and economic mobility.
Louise M. Antony argues an important ethical concern in her article, “Good minus God”. Can a person do good deeds without God? Arguing from an atheistic point of view, Antony believes that a person does not need to depend on God in order to complete good deeds. I agree, whether Christian or Atheist, all can perform good deeds, but who ultimately defines good versus evil? Antony subjectively defines morality and uses nature as her source.
King thought that nonviolence is the answer to conflict. He saw nonviolence as a potent weapon (Baldwin & Burrow, 192). This weapon seeks to destroy evil and injustice, not the people who practise them. It involves a social demonstration of love. Furthermore, in relation to his spiritual inclination, King believed that all human life belongs to God (Baldwin & Burrow, 196, 197).
In contrast, Pascal believes that humans choose to follow their heart because people believe their heart is good. Also, Pascal believes that the human condition is the aspiration to figure out the unknown. The notion of the uncertain leads Pascal to talk a lot about the afterlife. He states humans live a life that encourages the hope that their afterlife will be superior. Pascal believes that the human
He believed humans should spend their lives seeking to become the perfect versions of themselves in every way possible. Along with that Gandhi focused on this idea of “sainthood’, meaning someone who lives their life under God’s will. Author George Orwell disagreed with Gandhi’s opinions going so far as to write an article explaining why he disagreed. In this article, Orwell proves his argument that imperfections make people human by using a respectful tone, addressing Gandhi’s own argument, and using an anaphora. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean you have to be disrespectful.
To change things that are ruled by nature. We’re lazy. We expect one image of someone we’ve never met to cause miracles in our lives because we live by the word of the church, therefore we deserve it, because we’ve only been loyal to him. With the belief of God we’ve put an excuse for everything, instead of using logic and making a change for ourselves. Praying is essential when believing in God, but praying should be meant to thanking the invisible, not asking for more.
In the Article, “Humanist,” by Armineh Noravian reflects on the concept of being a humanist. Although he is motivated by empathy to help others, he states that it is an act that is used to satisfy one’s own sense ‘duty’ and only temporarily provides for those in need. Suggesting that humanists should help people prevent them from becoming self-sufficient and shouldn’t make others subject to one’s empathy.
Juan Luis Vives, a Spanish humanist, demonstrates a perfect example of an individual who has faith in humanity and believes that we as a whole can do better. Juan believes that no one knows what the ideas of a the poor are or under what circumstances they are living, but people don’t help because,”others withdraw because their good intention is embarrassed by the great number” (Doc 1). Since Luis was a Humanist and he wrote this in a book, he must have meant it and wanted to spread the word to others that it is not a sin to help the poor. Another person who witnessed the poor would have to be Rembrandt van Rijn, in his painting Beggars Receiving Alms at the Door (Doc 6). In Rembrandt’s painting, he shows how the poor would bring along their family to show the suffering that they would go through, even while having young children.
Based on the passage deciphered, I believe the Puritans perceived their actions in the New World would be gratifying and righteous in the God’s sight. According to the Puritans religion you should live in unity, peace, and in love with all others, and anyone that no longer believe or strayed away form their beliefs would be exiled. Thereof no longer being just in the eyes of God. In my opinion the puritans actions were contrary to their own beliefs. It was quite selfish and unthoughtful in my eyes.
This coincides with my next argument in that God has created a world that allows for both good and evil, and along with this, he gave humans the ability to make their own choices. God allows humans, who are not all-powerful and not necessarily wholly good beings to have the decision to make between being good and being evil. I am a firm believer in this hands-off approach that God may have taken during his creation because free will allows people to ultimately choose their own path in life, and while allowing the possibility for evil to occur God himself remains both wholly good and all-powerful. Without free will it would be unclear as to what makes humans unique individuals; free will allows for the understanding that humans can be themselves and choose their outcomes ultimately resulting in them deciding their lives. Unfortunately, free will along with good and evil go hand in hand.